<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73736</link>
    <description>Rule 231 of the Central Excise Rules applies only to matches found with a dealer or retailer in the prescribed condition, so a commission agent or broker outside that class could not be penalised or have goods confiscated under that rule. The penalty imposed under Rule 231 was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the amount appropriated against the seized goods reduced. On the exemption issue, Notification No. 22/1982 applied only to match boxes containing 50 sticks; boxes with fewer sticks could not claim the concession by implication. Duty at the tariff rate was accordingly upheld, though the penalties on the other appellants were reduced in view of the cottage nature of the units and the absence of past contravention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:18:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73736</link>
      <description>Rule 231 of the Central Excise Rules applies only to matches found with a dealer or retailer in the prescribed condition, so a commission agent or broker outside that class could not be penalised or have goods confiscated under that rule. The penalty imposed under Rule 231 was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the amount appropriated against the seized goods reduced. On the exemption issue, Notification No. 22/1982 applied only to match boxes containing 50 sticks; boxes with fewer sticks could not claim the concession by implication. Duty at the tariff rate was accordingly upheld, though the penalties on the other appellants were reduced in view of the cottage nature of the units and the absence of past contravention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>